4.5 Article

Data partitioning and correction for ascertainment bias reduce the uncertainty of placental mammal divergence times inferred from the morphological clock

期刊

ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
卷 9, 期 4, 页码 2255-2262

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ece3.4921

关键词

ascertainment bias; character coding; evolutionary radiation; morphological clock; morphology model

资金

  1. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico [310974/2015-1, 440954/2016-9, 421392/2016-9, 200332/2018-0]
  2. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior [88887.130764/2016-00, 88887.125427/2016-00]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bayesian estimates of divergence times based on the molecular clock yield uncertainty of parameter estimates measured by the width of posterior distributions of node ages. For the relaxed molecular clock, previous works have reported that some of the uncertainty inherent to the variation of rates among lineages may be reduced by partitioning data. Here we test this effect for the purely morphological clock, using placental mammals as a case study. We applied the uncorrelated lognormal relaxed clock to morphological data of 40 extant mammalian taxa and 4,533 characters, taken from the largest published matrix of discrete phenotypic characters. The morphologically derived timescale was compared to divergence times inferred from molecular and combined data. We show that partitioning data into anatomical units significantly reduced the uncertainty of divergence time estimates for morphological data. For the first time, we demonstrate that ascertainment bias has an impact on the precision of morphological clock estimates. While analyses including molecular data suggested most divergences between placental orders occurred near the K-Pg boundary, the partitioned morphological clock recovered older interordinal splits and some younger intraordinal ones, including significantly later dates for the radiation of bats and rodents, which accord to the short-fuse hypothesis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据